Monthly Archives: February 2023

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a patient to limit the patients suffering. The patient in question would typically be terminally ill or experiencing great pain and suffering.

The word euthanasia itself comes from the Greek words eu (good) and thanatos (death). The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively good death.

Different practices fall under the label euthanasia. Here are some distinctions demarcating different versions.

Active euthanasia: killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called aggressive euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia: intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such as a ventilator or feeding tube. Some ethicists distinguish betweenwithholdinglife support andwithdrawinglife support (the patient is on life support but then removed from it).

Voluntary euthanasia: with the consent of the patient.

Involuntary euthanasia: without the consent of the patient, for example, if the patient is unconscious and his or her wishes are unknown.. Some ethicists distinguish between involuntary (against the patients wishes) and nonvoluntary (without the patients consent but wishes are unknown) forms.

Self-administered euthanasia: the patient administers the means of death.

Other-administered euthanasia: a person other than the patient administers the means of death.

Assisted: the patient administers the means of death but with the assistance of another person, such as a physician.

There are many possible combinations of the above types, and many types of euthanasia are morally controversial. Some types of euthanasia, such as assisted voluntary forms, are legal in some countries.

Mercy-killing:The term mercy-killing usually refers to active, involuntary or nonvoluntary, other-administered euthanasia. In other words, someone kills a patient without their explicit consent to end the patients suffering. Some ethicists think that

Physician-assisted suicide:The phrase physician-assisted suicide refers to active, voluntary, assisted euthanasia where a physician assists the patient. A physician provides the patient with a means, such as sufficient medication, for the patient to kill him or herself.

Some instances of euthanasia are relatively uncontroversial. Killing a patient against their will (involuntary, aggressive/active, other-administered), for instance, is almost universally condemned. During the late 1930s and early 1940s, in Germany, Adolf Hitler carried out a program to exterminate children with disabilities (with or without their parents permission) under the guise of improving the Aryan race and reducing costs to society. Everyone now thinks this kind of euthanasia in the service of a eugenics program was clearly morally wrong.

Advocates of active euthanasia typically argue that killing the patients in question is not worse than letting them die. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia often claim that patients should have the right to do what they want with their own lives. Advocates of mercy killing argue that for patients who are in vegetative states with no prospect of recovery, letting them die prevents future needless and futile treatment efforts. If they are suffering then killing them prevents further suffering. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that a physician assisting a terminally ill or suffering patient is merely helping the patient who wishes to die with dignity.

Critics of the euthanasia typically argue that killing is always wrong, that nonvoluntary or involuntary euthanasia violates patient rights, or that physician-assisted suicide violates an obligation to do no harm.

Killing vs. letting die: There is dispute over whether killing a patient is really any worse than letting the patient die if both result in the same outcome.

Commonsense morality usually thinks that letting a person die is not as bad as killing a person. We sometimes condemn letting an innocent person die and sometimes not, but we always condemn killing an innocent person.

Consider different instances of letting die. One might claim that it is wrong to let our neighbor die of an accident if we could easily have saved his or her life by calling an ambulance. On the other hand, we let starving people in poor countries die without condemning ourselves for failing to save them, because we think they have no right to demand we prevent their deaths. But if someone killed a neighbor or starving people we would think that wrong.

Likewise, we would condemn a healthcare professional who kills a patient. But we might accept the healthcare professional who at patient and family request withholds artificial life support to allow a suffering, terminally ill patient to die.

The distinction between killing and letting die is controversial in healthcare because critics charge there is no proper moral basis for the distinction. They say that killing the above patient brings about the same end as letting the patient die. Others object to this and claim that the nature of the act of killing is different than letting die in ways that make it morally wrong.

Ordinary vs. extraordinary treatment: Ordinary medical treatment includes stopping bleeding, administering pain killers and antibiotics, and setting fractures. But using a mechanical ventilator to keep a patient breathing is sometimes considered extraordinary treatment or care. Some ethicists believe letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing artificial treatment or care is acceptable but withholding or withdrawing ordinary treatment or care is not. This view is controversial. Some claim the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment is artificial, contrived, vague, or constantly changing as technology progresses

Death intended vs. anticipated: Some ethicists believe that if a suffering, terminally-ill patient dies because of intentionally receiving pain-relieving medications, it makes a difference whether the death itself was intended or merely anticipated. If the death was intended it is wrong but if the death was anticipated it might be morally acceptable. This reasoning relies on the moral principle called the principle of double effect.

Excerpt from:

Euthanasia - MU School of Medicine

Opinion 1.1.1

At the heart of medicine lie relationships founded in a covenant of trust between patient and physician in which physicians commit themselves to responding to the needs and promoting the welfare of patients.

Preserving opportunity for physicians to act (or to refrain from acting) in accordance with the dictates of conscience is important for preserving the integrity of the medical profession as well as the integrity of the individual physician; Physicians freedom to act according to conscience is not unlimited; They are expected to provide care in emergencies, honor patients informed decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment, respect basic civil liberties and not discriminate against patients on the basis of arbitrary characteristics.

Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care.

Physicians should engage patients whose capacity is impaired in decisions involving their own care to the greatest extent possible, including when the patient has previously designated a surrogate to make decisions on his or her behalf.

When a terminally ill patient experiences severe pain or other distressing clinical symptoms that do not respond to aggressive, symptom-specific palliation, it can be appropriate to offer sedation to unconsciousness as an intervention of last resort.

Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physicians role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must respond to the needs of patients at the end of life.

Go here to read the rest:

Euthanasia | ama-coe - American Medical Association

Euthanasia (good death) is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relievepainandsuffering. It is also known as mercy killing. In many countries,there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia.Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Euthanasia is also classified into active and passive Euthanasia.

Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants.

Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to focus on a number of key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments:

Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia:

Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On 7 March 2011, the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for 42 years until her death in 2015.

In March 2011, the Supreme Court of India passed a historic judgement-law permitting Passive Euthanasia in the country. This judgment was passed in the wake of Pinki Viranis plea to the highest court in December 2009 under the Constitutional provision of Next Friend. Its a landmark law which places the power of choice in the hands of the individual, over government, medical or religious control which sees all suffering as destiny. The Supreme Court specified two irreversible conditions to permit Passive Euthanasia Law in its 2011 Law:

ClearIAS Video Classes (Recorded): The easiest way to cover the entire UPSC Prelims and Mains GS syllabus in the shortest time.

ClearIAS Prelims Test Series: The best Mock Exams you ever get for practice for UPSC Prelims.

ClearIAS Intelligent Elimination Techniques (IETs): 40 IETs to solve difficult MCQs using logic and common sense.

Yes. I love ClearIAS methods!

The same judgement-law also asked for the scrapping of 309, the code which penalises those who survive suicide-attempts. In December 2014, the Government of India declared its intention to do so.

However on 25 February 2014, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India had termed the judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug case to be inconsistent in itself and has referred the issue of euthanasia to its five-judge Constitution bench on a PIL filed by Common Cause, which case is the basis of the current debate. Then, the CJI referred to an earlier Constitution Bench judgment which, in the Gian Kaur case, did not express any binding view on the subject of euthanasia; rather it reiterated that the legislature would be the appropriate authority to bring change. Though that judgment said the right to live with dignity under Article 21 was inclusive of the right to die with dignity, it did not arrive at a conclusion on the validity of euthanasia, be it active or passive. So, the only judgment that holds the field with regard to euthanasia in India is the ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which upholds the validity of passive euthanasia and lays down an elaborate procedure for executing the same on the wrong premise that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur had upheld the same, the CJI said.

OnDecember 23, 2014, Government of India endorsed and re-validated the Passive Euthanasia judgement-law in a Press Release, after stating in the Rajya Sabha as follows: that The Honble Supreme Court of India, while dismissing the plea for mercy killing in a particular case, laid down comprehensive guidelines to process cases relating to passive euthanasia. Thereafter, the matter of mercy killing was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has been decided that since the Honble Supreme Court has already laid down the guidelines, these should be followed and treated as law in such cases. At present, there is no legislation on this subject and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court is binding on all.

The court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law. Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds for the purpose of ending life, is still illegal in India, and in most countries.

As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Courts guidelines are law until and unless Parliament passes legislation. The following guidelines were laid down:

Recently, the issue was in the news, as the Govt. said it was open to making a law on the subject. The law commission too has proposed a legislation on passive euthanasia, it said. According to the Centre, the decision to come out with a bill was taken after considering the directives of the apex court, the law commissions 241st report and a private member bill introduced in Parliament in 2014. The Centre said that initially, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of B.P. Sharma, secretary in the health and family welfare ministry, on May 22, 2015, to examine the draft of The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill and the draft of The Euthanasia (Regulation) Bill.

This move to introduce a bill is a welcome step to clear the grey areas in Euthanasia debate.Students can also link to this issue while answering questions on:

Article by: Jishnu J Raju

Go here to read the rest:

Euthanasia - Arguments in Favour and Against - ClearIAS

Baton Rouge animal shelter overwhelmed, resorting to euthanasia: 'Please help us help them'  The Advocate

Read the rest here:

Baton Rouge animal shelter overwhelmed, resorting to euthanasia: 'Please help us help them' - The Advocate